Department of Housing and Urban Development: Lack of
Accountability for Computer Equipment Leaves These Assets
Vulnerable to Loss or Misappropriation (23-APR-04, GAO-04-520R).
In testimony in October 2002 and in a report issued in April 2003
we raised concerns about the Department of Housing and Urban
Development's (HUD) accountability for computers and
computer-related equipment bought with government purchase cards.
Our review identified a large volume of computers and
computer-related purchases for which HUD did not have adequate
supporting documentation. In addition, HUD acknowledged that
items bought with purchase cards were not being consistently
entered in its asset management system thereby increasing its
vulnerability to loss or theft. Given these findings, and the
approximately $59 million HUD reported it has spent on computers
and computer-related equipment and services over the last 3
fiscal years, Congress asked of us to further assess HUD's
accountability for these vulnerable assets. Specifically, it was
requested that we determine whether HUD had established an
effective system of internal control for maintaining
accountability over its computer equipment. Our review covered
HUD's systems and controls in place during fiscal years 2001,
2002, and 2003.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-04-520R
ACCNO: A09870
TITLE: Department of Housing and Urban Development: Lack of
Accountability for Computer Equipment Leaves These Assets
Vulnerable to Loss or Misappropriation
DATE: 04/23/2004
SUBJECT: Computers
Internal controls
Computer equipment management
Credit sales
Federal procurement
Accountability
Financial management
Government purchase cards
HUD Facilities Integrated Resource
Management System
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-04-520R
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548
April 23, 2004
The Honorable Christopher S. Bond
Chairman
Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
Subject: Department of Housing and Urban Development: Lack of
Accountability for Computer Equipment Leaves These Assets Vulnerable to
Loss or Misappropriation
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In testimony in October 20021 and in a report issued in April 20032 we
raised concerns about the Department of Housing and Urban Development's
(HUD) accountability for computers and computer-related equipment bought
with government purchase cards. Our review identified a large volume of
computers and computer-related purchases for which HUD did not have
adequate supporting documentation. In addition, HUD acknowledged that
items bought with purchase cards were not being consistently entered in
its asset management system thereby increasing its vulnerability to loss
or theft.3
Given these findings, and the approximately $59 million4 HUD reported it
has spent on computers and computer-related equipment and services over
the last 3 fiscal years, you asked us to further assess HUD's
accountability for these vulnerable assets. Specifically, you requested
that we determine whether HUD had established an effective system of
internal control for maintaining accountability over its computer
equipment. Our review covered HUD's systems and controls in place during
fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003.
1 U.S. General Accounting Office, Financial Management: Strategies to
Address Improper Payments
at HUD, Education, and Other Federal Agencies, GAO-03-167T (Washington,
D.C.: October 3, 2002).
2 U.S. General Accounting Office, HUD Purchase Cards: Poor Internal
Controls Resulted in Improper
and Questionable Purchases, GAO-03-489 (Washington, D.C.: April 2003).
3 This information was provided in response to Office of Management and
Budget Memorandum M-02
05 requiring agencies to develop a remedial action plan to manage the risk
associated with purchase
card usage.
4 This total includes purchases of computer-related supplies and services
and nonaccountable
equipment, which is not tracked in HUD's asset management system.
We conducted our review from July 2003 through March 2004, in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. We requested
comments from HUD's Assistant Secretary for Administration/Chief
Information Officer or her designee. HUD's written comments are reprinted
in the enclosure.
Results in Brief
HUD did not have an effective internal control system in place to maintain
accountability over its computer equipment. Fundamental internal control
activities were not performed, and as a result, computers and
computer-related equipment were highly vulnerable to loss or
misappropriation. We found that HUD did not consistently record computer
equipment purchases in its asset management system or effectively maintain
or reconcile its records. In addition, HUD did not perform regular
physical inventories to verify the quantities and location of computer
equipment.
Because of these serious internal control weaknesses, neither HUD nor we
were able to reliably determine the total amount of computer equipment
purchases during the period of our review. However, for four of HUD's
major computer equipment vendors, we were able to identify over $2.2
million in computer equipment purchased in fiscal years 2001, 2002, and
2003 that was not recorded in HUD's asset management system, of which we
determined over $82,000 to be lost or missing.5 Given the seriousness of
the identified control weaknesses, these numbers could be much higher.
Although HUD has awarded a new information technology contract for
essentially all of its information processing, telecommunications, and
related needs on an agencywide basis,6 it will still be accountable for
HUD-owned equipment at least through fiscal year 2006. Until HUD corrects
the weaknesses in its internal controls, accountability over existing
computer equipment will remain problematic, and these assets will continue
to be vulnerable to loss or misappropriation.
This report makes seven recommendations for actions that if fully
implemented, should help the department better protect and account for its
computer equipment. In written comments on a draft of this report, HUD
concurred with our findings and recommendations and outlined actions it
plans to take in response.
Background
HUD's reported purchases of computers and computer-related equipment,
hereinafter referred to as computer equipment, and services in fiscal
years 2001, 2002, and 2003
5 We define lost or missing computer equipment as that for which HUD was
unable to provide location information or that which HUD specifically
stated it was unable to locate. 6 As discussed later in the report, in
December 2003, GAO sustained a protest filed against HUD's award of this
contract.
totaled about $27.6 million, $22.1 million, and $9.3 million,
respectively. HUD uses its asset management system to account for all
accountable inventory, which includes computer equipment (both capitalized
and noncapitalized) as well as other items, such as furniture, weapons,
and audiovisual equipment.7 HUD issued new inventory process Standard
Operating Procedures (SOP) on July 1, 2001, to supplement HUD Handbook
2200.01, Administrative Services Policy Handbook, dated December 2000.
Together, the handbook and the new SOPs make up HUD's personal property
management policy as it relates to computer equipment. According to HUD's
policies and procedures, all computer equipment is to be purchased through
the Office of Information Technology (OIT) in headquarters. OIT works
under the guidance of its own policies and procedures manual dated
November 1991, HUD Handbook 2400.13 CHG 1, Word Processing and
Microcomputer Technology Policies and Procedures.
The Office of Administrative and Management Services (OAMS) is responsible
for maintaining HUD's asset management system, called the Facilities
Integrated Resource Management System (FIRMS). As of September 2003, the
total amount of inventory recorded in FIRMS was over $167 million, of
which recorded accountable computer equipment totaled about $96 million.
While OAMS is responsible for maintaining an accurate account of HUD-owned
computer equipment in FIRMS, it must rely on the Office of the Chief
Procurement Officer (OCPO), OIT, and the administrative resource divisions
(ARD) for the necessary information. OCPO and OIT are required to notify
OAMS in advance of all purchases of accountable computer equipment. When
new equipment is received directly by ARDs or field offices or when
equipment is transferred from one field office to another, the ARDs are
responsible for providing OAMS with the documentation needed to update
FIRMS. The receiving department personnel, who report to OAMS, use Palm
Pilots to capture required data elements, such as equipment type,
equipment standard, serial numbers, and barcodes. This information is then
uploaded to FIRMS thereby recording the equipment in FIRMS.
OIT makes computer equipment purchases using purchase cards, or if the
amounts exceed the purchase card limits, HUD Form 10.4, Requisition for
Supplies, Equipment, Forms, Publications and Procurement Services, is
completed and forwarded to OCPO to make the purchase. As required by its
own handbook, OIT maintains the Request Ordering System (ROS), an
inventory database of computer equipment, separately from FIRMS. OAMS has
access to the ROS database, but OIT does not have access to FIRMS. HUD has
three administrative service centers that cover 10 regions. There are six
ARDs, two within each administrative service center, that are responsible
for the individual field offices within each region.
Internal control is a major part of managing an organization and is key to
ensuring proper use of government resources. As mandated by 31
U.S.C.S:3512, commonly known as the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity
Act of 1982, the Comptroller
7 Accountable property is all capitalized and nonexpendable equipment with
an acquisition cost of $1,000 or more, per item. Items with recurring
monthly charges with life cycle costs of more than $1,000, such as
cellular phones, should be included as accountable property. Sensitive
items valued under $1,000 are also considered accountable property and
should be included in the Facilities Integrated Resource Management
System.
General has issued standards for internal control.8 These standards
provide the overall framework for establishing and maintaining internal
control and for identifying and addressing major performance and
management challenges and areas at greatest risk of fraud, waste, abuse,
and mismanagement. According to these standards, internal control
comprises the plans, methods, and procedures used to meet missions, goals,
and objectives.
Control activities are the policies, procedures, techniques, and
mechanisms that enforce management's directives and help ensure that
actions are taken to address risks. Control activities are an integral
part of an entity's planning, implementation, review, and accountability
for stewardship of government resources and achieving effective results.
They include a wide range of diverse activities. Some examples of control
activities include reconciliations, physical control over vulnerable
assets, and accurate and timely recording of transactions and events.
Scope and Methodology
To determine whether HUD has an effective system of internal control for
maintaining accountability over its computer equipment, we performed
walkthroughs of the purchasing and receiving processes, reviewed HUD's
policies and procedures, reviewed reports by HUD's Office of Inspector
General (OIG) and an independent contractor with regard to computer
equipment, and interviewed HUD staff.
We obtained data on fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003 computer equipment
purchases by vendor from OIT. This information had to be manually
generated by OIT from purchase orders and other available data because it
was not available by vendor in HUD's asset management system. We attempted
to verify the completeness of the purchase information by comparing it to
HUD's total recorded purchases in its general ledger system. However,
because HUD does not specifically identify computer equipment purchases in
its general ledger, we were unable to validate the purchase information
provided by HUD using the general ledger. In addition, as discussed later
in the report, we identified completeness issues with regard to HUD's
asset management system, and therefore neither HUD nor we could use this
as a source for determining the overall completeness of the purchase
information. However, from the information HUD provided us we were able to
identify four vendors from which HUD made significant computer equipment
purchases during the period of our review. In the course of our review, we
also determined that HUD's information technology contractor made
significant purchases of computer equipment for HUD during the period of
our review. However, we limited our testing to computer equipment
purchases made directly by HUD employees from the four vendors selected.
We requested and obtained information on HUD computer equipment purchases
directly from these four vendors for fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003. We
imported the data into data analysis software. We used the software to
perform matching tests
8 U.S. General Accounting Office, Internal Control: Standards for Internal
Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.:
November 1999).
on the data to determine whether the computer equipment purchases were
included in FIRMS.9
We prepared spreadsheets listing the items purchased by HUD from these
vendors that were not included in FIRMS. We then electronically sent these
spreadsheets to the directors of the HUD field offices who were the
designated recipients of the items as listed on the invoices and requested
that they identify for us the specific location of the items (for example,
building name, street address, floor number, and room number) and to whom
the items were assigned. We requested shipping documentation for items
that HUD indicated had been transferred elsewhere. Additionally, we
performed physical inspections of selected computer equipment at HUD field
offices in Richmond, Denver, and New York to validate, on a test basis,
whether the items were at the locations cited by HUD.
We obtained copies of the journal vouchers and the capitalized equipment
depreciation reports HUD used to perform adjustments to the general ledger
at September 30 for fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003. We reviewed these
documents and interviewed the officials responsible for preparing them to
gain an understanding of the methodology used to make the year-end
adjustments to the general ledger balances.
Ineffective Internal Controls Resulted in a Lack of Accountability over
Computer Equipment
HUD did not have effective internal controls in place to maintain
accountability over its computer equipment. We identified the following
weaknesses in HUD's system of internal control over these assets: (1)
computer equipment was not consistently recorded in HUD's asset management
system, (2) asset management system records were not reconciled to HUD's
general ledger, and (3) physical inventories of computer equipment were
not regularly performed. These conditions created an environment where
computer equipment became highly vulnerable to loss or misappropriation
with little risk of detection. HUD awarded a new information technology
contract in August 2003, to provide for its future computer equipment
needs. However, HUD will remain accountable for its existing computer
equipment at least through 2006.
Computer Equipment Was Not Consistently Recorded in HUD's Asset Management
System
Our review of selected purchases of computers and computer-related
equipment from four key vendors disclosed that at least $2.2 million of
these purchases were not recorded in HUD's asset management system, FIRMS,
thus limiting accountability and control over these assets, many of which
are portable.
Based on data provided to us by OIT personnel, we identified four major
vendors from which HUD made computer equipment purchases. We requested
documentation
9 We were not able to perform these matching tests on approximately $2.0
million in purchases from two of the four vendors because those two
vendors did not include serial numbers.
related to HUD purchases of computer equipment directly from these
vendors. We compared the corresponding information against FIRMS and
determined that approximately 21 percent of the purchases made from these
vendors had not been recorded in FIRMS.10 Table 1 details the unrecorded
purchases during fiscal years 2001 through 2003.
Table 1: Items Not Recorded in HUD's Asset Management System as of
September 2003
Number of Value of Percentage of purchase
Fiscal Purchases tested items tested items dollars tested that were not
year tested not recorded not recorded recorded
2001 $5,029,007 192 $ 172,814 3
2002 5,165,160 2,165 2,006,129 38
2003 262,845 31 41,198 16
Total $ 10,457,012 2,388 $ 2,220,141 21
Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.
Given the serious internal control weaknesses we identify in this report,
and the fact that we tested purchases only from selected vendors, there
may be additional purchases of computer equipment that are not recorded in
HUD's asset management system.
HUD's policy requires that all accountable computer equipment purchases be
recorded in FIRMS. OAMS is to receive notice of the purchase within 2 days
of the approval to purchase or the actual purchase from OIT or within 3
days of the approval to purchase or the actual purchase from OCPO. OAMS is
required by HUD policy to follow up with the purchaser if the equipment
has not been received within 30 days of the purchase notification to
ensure that all items purchased are recorded in FIRMS. As shown above, for
the purchases we reviewed, these policies were not consistently followed.
For example, while OAMS received the proper advance notification of a
large single purchase of 4,763 computers totaling about $4.4 million in
July 2002, it failed to follow up with OIT when records indicated that not
all of the equipment had been received after 30 days. As a result, 2,106
computers totaling about $1.9 million of this single purchase were not
recorded in the asset management system, which make up the majority of the
fiscal year 2002 unrecorded purchases we identified.
We requested location information on the 2,388 items we identified that
were not recorded in HUD's asset management system from the directors of
the field offices where the items were originally shipped. HUD was
ultimately able to provide location information on 2,284 items totaling
about $2.1 million. This information was
10 Of the approximately $16.2 million in total purchases, as represented
by HUD, from these four vendors, we were able to perform this comparison
on approximately $10.5 million in purchases (as shown in table 1). Vendor
documentation related to $2.0 million in purchases did not include serial
numbers, and therefore we were unable to match these purchases against
FIRMS. The remaining $3.7 million was not tested because it included items
other than equipment.
based on OIT records, which are maintained separately from FIRMS. The
department was unable to provide location information for 104 items
totaling over $82,000. While not significant compared to total computer
purchases during the period of review, HUD's inability to locate this
equipment demonstrates that lapses in accountability for these portable
assets can and do occur under HUD's current system of controls.
In our efforts to locate this equipment, we also determined that
supporting documentation for equipment transfers that occurred between HUD
offices during the period of our review often did not exist. HUD was not
able to provide supporting documentation for most of the items it recorded
as being shipped to another location. For example, we sent requests for
location information to each field office that received equipment. Based
on the responses we received, we requested shipping documentation for the
computers that were listed as no longer at the receiving field office. HUD
was unable to provide the requested shipping documentation, stating that
type of information is not maintained. HUD's failure to regularly maintain
supporting documentation for transfers is another factor that erodes its
chain of accountability for this equipment and increases the risk of loss
or misappropriation.
Asset Management System Was Not Reconciled to HUD's General Ledger
An effective reconciliation of an entity's detailed list of assets to its
general ledger, the official record of accounts, is a key internal control
necessary to help ensure the accuracy and completeness of both sets of
records and thus to maintain accountability and control over the assets.
We found that HUD was not effectively reconciling its asset management
system inventory records (FIRMS reports) to its general ledger, as
required by its policies and procedures. Thus, errors in the detailed
records went unnoticed, and inaccurate adjustments were made to the
general ledger to "balance" it to the erroneous inventory records in
FIRMS.
When an obligation for the purchase of computer equipment is made, the
obligating official is to establish an accounting code that initially
classifies the purchase as a capitalized asset or an expense. When the
invoice is received by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO),
the purchase order number or contract number that appears on the invoice
is entered into the accounting system, indicating whether the transaction
should be recorded as a capitalized asset or an expense in the general
ledger. However, for fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003 all such items were
recorded initially as expenses in the general ledger.
Upon receipt of purchased computer equipment, OAMS is to record the
equipment in FIRMS. If the value of a single asset or a group of similar
assets is $100,000 or more, the item is to be coded as capitalized
equipment in FIRMS. OAMS sends OCFO a quarterly11 FIRMS report that lists
all assets to be capitalized and depreciated.12 OCFO
11 Prior to the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2003, this report was
prepared manually based on OAMS
staff's interpretation of the capitalization policy and submitted
annually. In fiscal year 2003, OAMS
began submitting this report quarterly. Beginning with the fourth quarter
of fiscal year 2003, the report
was automated.
12 Capitalized assets are recorded on the balance sheet, whereas
noncapitalized assets are recorded as
expenses on the statement of net cost in HUD's financial statements.
Depreciation of capitalized assets
is to compare the amounts in the OAMS report to the general ledger
balances and use the report to adjust the amount of equipment purchases
for the period that should be capitalized as assets in the general ledger
and to record the related depreciation expense.
Neither OAMS nor OCFO attempts to reconcile total purchases of equipment
in FIRMS (both capitalized and noncapitalized) to the general ledger
records.13 HUD also does not, in its general ledger, segregate accountable
assets that are required to be recorded in FIRMS from nonaccountable
assets, which would be necessary to facilitate such a reconciliation.
These issues, combined with the other serious internal control weaknesses
we identified, precluded HUD or us from being able to reliably determine
the total amount of equipment purchases for the period of our review.
Because HUD does not reconcile FIRMS activity to the general ledger, if
purchases are not recorded in FIRMS or coding errors are made in
establishing whether equipment is capitalized or not within FIRMS, there
is not an established process to promptly identify and correct errors.
Because FIRMS is used to adjust the general ledger for capitalized assets,
any errors in FIRMS are transferred to the general ledger. For example,
according to officials in OCFO, in fiscal year 2001, OAMS staff initially
recorded the purchase of several servers totaling approximately $23
million to expense codes in FIRMS, but it was later determined that these
servers should have been capitalized as assets. Thus a year-end adjustment
to the general ledger was required. Two years later in fiscal year 2003,
based on a reassessment of the transactions, OAMS staff determined that
those items should not have been capitalized after all and yet another
year-end adjustment to the general ledger was required. Thus, assuming the
capitalization determination by OAMS was correct, the general ledger
balances were misstated in fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002. In
addition, if OAMS fails to record computer equipment purchases in FIRMS,
as we found during our review, this also misstates the general
ledger-overstating expensed assets and understating capitalized assets and
depreciation expense, thus skewing HUD's operating results.
Because HUD does not perform meaningful reconciliations of FIRMS to the
general ledger, errors of this nature can continue without detection, thus
compromising the accuracy of HUD's general ledger computer equipment
accounts and its detailed asset management system inventory. Thus, both
accountability and control over these vulnerable assets are compromised.
Based on discussions with HUD officials, we understand that once the new
information technology contract discussed below is in place, HUD will no
longer be making computer purchases, since essentially all computer
equipment will be supplied and owned by the contractor. While this will
simplify the process, regular reconciliations of FIRMS and the general
ledger will still be necessary to help ensure
spreads the cost of the assets over the future periods benefited, rather
than expensing the total cost in
the period acquired.
13 There is currently no requirement in HUD's policies and procedures to
reconcile total equipment
purchases in FIRMS to total purchases in the general ledger.
that disposal and depreciation activity is properly reflected in the
general ledger and to verify accountability in FIRMS.
Physical Inventories of Computer Equipment Not Regularly Performed
We also found that HUD had not been regularly performing physical
inventories of computer equipment, another key internal control necessary
to secure and safeguard vulnerable assets. HUD's property and equipment
policies and procedures require that a physical inventory be completed at
least every 2 years. In its Management Letter14 for fiscal year 1999,
HUD's OIG stated that it had noted this issue in its financial audit since
at least 1993. The OIG discusses the issue again in its Management Letters
for fiscal years 2000 and 2001. To address this ongoing problem, HUD hired
a contractor in fiscal year 2001 to perform a physical inventory and
update the computer equipment inventory records. However, no physical
inventory was performed in fiscal year 2002 and only a partial15 physical
inventory was completed in 2003. Ongoing errors in recording equipment,
combined with the other problems we identified, increase the risk of
continuing inaccuracies in HUD's asset management system that have not
been corrected through regular physical inventories. HUD officials told us
that a physical inventory had been completed in December 2003; however, as
of the end of our fieldwork, the results of the physical inventory had not
been provided to OAMS so that it could update FIRMS. The officials stated
that due to the sustained protest of the contract award discussed below,
all contractor work related to the equipment inventory has been put on
hold.
While the completion of the physical inventory is a positive step forward,
until FIRMS is updated to reflect the results, there will be little
benefit from these efforts. In addition, unless HUD performs regular
inventories and corrects the other deficiencies we identified to keep its
inventory records accurate on an ongoing basis, it will have minimal
assurances of the quantities and locations of its computer equipment.
New Information Technology Contract Will Not Fully Resolve Accountability
Issues
In August 2003, HUD awarded a new $860 million information technology
contract for essentially all of its information processing,
telecommunications, and related needs on a nationwide, agencywide basis.
Under the new information technology contract, the contractor will provide
contractor-owned equipment and services necessary to meet HUD's
information processing and telecommunications requirements. Under this
approach, HUD officials advised us that they no longer plan on making
direct purchases of computers and computer-related equipment. However, HUD
still retains ownership of previously purchased computer equipment and
will need to maintain accountability for this equipment through at least
fiscal year 2006, its estimated remaining useful life.
14 The Management Letters issued by HUD's OIG in connection with audits of
HUD's annual financial
statements contain various findings and recommendations that were in
addition to those included in
the auditors' reports on internal controls.
15 Although the physical inventory count has been completed, the results
have not been provided to
OAMS so that it can reconcile the count to FIRMS.
In December 2003, GAO sustained a protest filed against HUD's award of
this contract and recommended that HUD reopen the acquisition, obtain
revised
16
proposals, and make a new award determination. Regardless of HUD's
ultimate contracting decisions, it will remain responsible for ensuring
that its information processing and telecommunications needs are met and
that the agency is expending funds properly to meet those needs.
Conclusion
The combination of weaknesses we found in HUD's controls over its computer
equipment limit HUD's ability to be accountable for these assets, both in
terms of physically safeguarding the assets from loss or misappropriation
and properly reflecting the assets and related expenses in its financial
records. Even with a new information technology contract, HUD will still
be accountable for resolving the issues we identified related to currently
owned HUD computer equipment. Therefore it is important that HUD
management act to establish adequate internal control over these highly
vulnerable assets.
Recommendations for Executive Action
In order to establish adequate internal control over HUD-owned computer
equipment and reduce HUD's vulnerability to fraud, waste, and abuse, we
recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Administration/Chief
Information Officer take the following seven actions:
o Reiterate to responsible HUD personnel the importance of following
HUD's established policies and procedures for recording computer equipment
purchases in FIRMS.
o Follow up on the items we identified as not recorded in FIRMS to
determine the location of the computer equipment and update FIRMS to
reflect the results.
o Establish specific requirements for maintenance of documentation and
records to support changes in the location of computer equipment.
o Perform quarterly reconciliations of HUD-owned computer equipment
balances in FIRMS, both capitalized and noncapitalized, to the recorded
amounts in the general ledger, including researching all differences and
correcting any identified errors.
o Segregate accountable equipment purchases from nonaccountable
purchases in the general ledger in order to facilitate the reconciliation
process.
o Update FIRMS to reflect the results of the recently completed physical
inventory of HUD-owned computer equipment.
o Perform a complete and accurate physical inventory of HUD-owned
computer equipment at least annually and update FIRMS as needed to reflect
the inventory results.
16 Lockheed Martin Information Systems, B-292836 (Dec. 18, 2003).
Agency Comments
In written comments on a draft of this report, from HUD's Assistant
Secretary for Administration/Chief Information Officer, HUD concurred with
our findings and recommendations and outlined actions it plans to take in
response. The agency also provided one minor technical comment, which we
incorporated into the report.
If you or your staff has any questions, please contact me at (202)
512-8341 or by e-mail at [email protected] or Robert Owens, Assistant
Director, at (202) 512-8579 or by e-mail at [email protected].
Sincerely yours,
Linda M. Calbom
Director, Financial Management and Assurance
Enclosure
Enclosure Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(190115)
GAO's Mission
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm
of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of
the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of
public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through the Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files.
To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and
select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order GAO Products"
heading.
Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D.C.
20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061
To Report Fraud, Contact: Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: [email protected]
Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470
Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800
Public Affairs U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
*** End of document. ***